inkbolt_session_history

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description does add real value the schema lacks by capping limit at 128 (the schema only sets minimum 0, no maximum) and describing the pagination cursor protocol, but it says nothing about result volume, ordering ties, or errors.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core scoping verb and ordering stated first and the paging recipe second. Slightly abstract phrasing ('receipts', 'revision order') keeps it from a 5, but it is efficiently front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly references next_after_revision as an output-side cursor. Pagination and limit bounds are covered; only the identity/root parameters and any ordering or failure behavior are left unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 40% (only session_root and response_format carry descriptions), so the description must compensate. It clarifies limit's practical range and after_revision's role as the continuation cursor, but session_id and session_root receive no mention in the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Page') plus resource ('committed history receipts') and ordering ('revision order'), which separates it from the singular inkbolt_session_receipt and from inkbolt_session_read. It does not explicitly name a sibling as the alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives concrete mechanics for iterating pages (limit range, pass the previous next_after_revision as after_revision), which implies when to use it for paginated browsing. However, it never says when to prefer this over inkbolt_session_read, inkbolt_session_receipt, or inkbolt_session_diff, leaving that choice to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.